Will Obama's 1st act shut down 1/3 of hospitals?

[Gunny]

I'd retort but you seem to be mocking yourself with your own sig line. I should be more careful if I were you.

Damn ... THAT scared me. I scrolled up and looked at the first sig I saw and it was MINE. Talk about a doubletake! I was like, this dude's swiped my line.

 

[eots]

the bright the side is the remaining hospitals will be free !!!!!

 

[Zoomie1980]

The pile of manure is your post. Try reading the article, huh? Obviously someone wants to try. Or is that too hard for you to figure out?

I bet you didn't even read it. You just went on the blind partisan hack attack. Thanks for validating a point a made in another thread about people not wanting to think ....

He's actually 100% correct. Obama has absolutely NO interest in pursuing either of these issues. They are NON-ISSUES.

At this time, there are only two issues on his plate, the economy and the war. He simply has no time to be bothered by much of anything else. He is NOT going to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions and there will be NO "fairness doctrine" legislation proposed. Both dead issues or non-issues regardless how much O'Reilly tries to make it one.

 

[Ravi]

I've no idea if any of the article is true or not, but as long as the hospitals don't accept federal funding, they've nothing to worry about and can do as they please. IF they can't exist without federal funding, too bad, someone will come along to fill the void.

How unconservative of people to want federal funding of hospitals.

 

[bigdaddygtr]

It's good to see the Republican base is going to cling to it's bread and butter issues, rather than become a Party for the 21st century.

Abortion, creation science, guns, and bibles.

Let them, then they'll keep getting their asses kicked

 

[Isolde]

Why do you liberals have such a ghoulish fascination with abortion?

Good grief, it's not like there aren't bigger problems in the world than an unwanted child.

I challenge anyone to dispute that statement.

 

[editec]

Why do you liberals have such a ghoulish fascination with abortion?

Take a look at who starts all these abortion threads. It ain't the board liberals.

Good grief, it's not like there aren't bigger problems in the world than an unwanted child.

Agreed.

I challenge anyone to dispute that statement.

From most libera;'s viewpoint, the debate is not about abortion, ya' know.

It's about whether or not we're going to willingly give the government the right to tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

There is no bigger problem in the world than governments thinking they have the right to tell people that the government has the right to tell people what to do with their own bodies.

If you don't own something that fundamental, then you are basically a slave.

 

[WillowTree]

He's actually 100% correct. Obama has absolutely NO interest in pursuing either of these issues. They are NON-ISSUES.

At this time, there are only two issues on his plate, the economy and the war. He simply has no time to be bothered by much of anything else. He is NOT going to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions and there will be NO "fairness doctrine" legislation proposed. Both dead issues or non-issues regardless how much O'Reilly tries to make it one.

never mind obamalama, the congresscritters idle away the devils time,, they've already brought up the fairness doctrine, and it would be them who brought up the abortion legislation.. Now the question is would obamalama sign either one once it hit his desk? Yes? of No?

 

[WillowTree]

Take a look at who starts all these abortion threads. It ain't the board liberals.



Agreed.



From most libera;'s viewpoint, the debate is not about abortion, ya' know.

It's about whether or not we're going to willingly give the government the right to tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

There is no bigger problem in the world than governments thinking they have the right to tell people that the government has the right to tell people what to do with their own bodies.

If you don't own something that fundamental, then you are basically a slave.

but at the same time you are perfectly willing to let the government call all the shots when it comes to your health care,, now if that's not governmental interference with your body I sure as heck don't know what is.

 

[editec]

but at the same time you are perfectly willing to let the government call all the shots when it comes to your health care,,

Am I? News to me. And it's news to anyone who ever reads my posts on that subject, too.

now if that's not governmental interference with your body I sure as heck don't know what is.

I do. Outlawing abortions.

Glad I could be there for you to answer that thorny question.

 

[Isolde]

Take a look at who starts all these abortion threads. It ain't the board liberals.



Agreed.



From most libera;'s viewpoint, the debate is not about abortion, ya' know.

It's about whether or not we're going to willingly give the government the right to tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies.
There is no bigger problem in the world than governments thinking they have the right to tell people that the government has the right to tell people what to do with their own bodies.

If you don't own something that fundamental, then you are basically a slave.

Technically speaking, science won't back you up on that statement. Let's just be honest about the debate, abortion is about a woman having the right to destroy a biologically separate and distinct life.

In order to effectively argue the right to abortion, you need to argue that a mother's right to choice trumps an unborn child's right to life.

 

[rayboyusmc]

This is a non isssue.

It won't happen.

It's another chicken little tactic to attack the anti christ Obama.

 

[Ravi]

Technically speaking, science won't back you up on that statement. Let's just be honest about the debate, abortion is about a woman having the right to destroy a biologically separate and distinct life.

In order to effectively argue the right to abortion, you need to argue that a mother's right to choice trumps an unborn child's right to life.

It does.

 

[Ravi]

This is a non isssue.

It won't happen.

It's another chicken little tactic to attack the anti christ Obama.

Yes, but isn't it fun to watch the hypocrites support of the government funding hospitals?

 

[WillowTree]

Well just let me say, I am all for liberals and abortion.. works for me.

 

[Tristan]

I've no idea if any of the article is true or not, but as long as the hospitals don't accept federal funding, they've nothing to worry about and can do as they please. IF they can't exist without federal funding, too bad, someone will come along to fill the void.

I don't know if it's true either as it's from the liberal bastion that is Salon.

I do know and posted proof that Obama said this would be his first act as POTUS. (talking to Planned Parenthood) I also posted a link to the Freedom of Choice Act where the issue of the ability of Catholic hospitals to keep their so called "conscientious objector" status comes into question. I am for religious freedom after all.

How unconservative of people to want federal funding of hospitals.

I don't want federal funding of hospitals. I dare say I stand as firmly or more so on that principle than anyone on this board. (guessing I'm the lone or rare Objectivist*) But we are not talking about some hospital grants to do study "x". We are talking about accepting patients on medicare and medicaid.

Of coarse the government can't literally make a doctor do an abortion. But if the Freedom of Choice act supported by Obama and Boxer gets passed Catholic hospitals might refuse to comply and thus have no choice but to close. And it is one third of hospitals at risk. (according to some liberal at Salon)

This is not an "abortion thread" so much as an example of how fast government control through FOCA and Medicare and Medicaid and a hundred other agencies can screw up the market.

(*student Objectivist that is, lol)

 

[Tristan]

This is a non isssue.

It won't happen.

It's another chicken little tactic to attack the anti christ Obama.

Here is the link to the chicken little liberal who wrote the article
Obama's threat to Catholic hospitals and their very serious counterthreat. - By Melinda Henneberger - Slate Magazine

Oy veh! does any liberal person read the damn OP before we all get graced with their brilliant retorts?

I said myself it was unlikely. Since some here can't be bothered to read the whole thread I'll give a whole new reason for it's unlikelyness. Obama is a liar! After his first priority of the FOCA....

Missoulian: Obama's first priority: End the war

Obama's first priority: End the war
By TRISTAN SCOTT of the Missoulian

BUTTE - For his first task as president, Barack Obama said Friday he'll call in the nation's top military officials and "tell them we have a new mission" - end the war in Iraq.

Barack Obama says stimulus plan is his priority - Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Chicago -- Sending a strong message that the faltering economy will be his top focus, President-elect Barack Obama on Friday urged Congress to pass an economic stimulus package before he takes office. If lawmakers fail to act, he said, he will make it "the first thing" he gets done.

Environmental Capital - WSJ.com : Obama Nation: What Will It Be Able To Do On Energy?

So President Obama arrives with a healthy popular- and electoral-vote mandate, a strengthened—if not fillibuster-proof–Congressional delegation, and big ideas. What will that mean for energy policy? Maybe less than many Obama supporters hope.

Barack Obama said repeatedly that establishing a new energy policy will be his administration’s first priority—once the economic mess is cleaned up. Or maybe his energy plans are a way to help jumpstart the economy now.

This last perhaps he can cure with one stone!

 

[Ravi]

I don't know if it's true either as it's from the liberal bastion that is Salon.

I don't know about you, but I don't automatically believe something because it is reported in a "liberal" venue.

I do know and posted proof that Obama said this would be his first act as POTUS. (talking to Planned Parenthood) I also posted a link to the Freedom of Choice Act where the issue of the ability of Catholic hospitals to keep their so called "conscientious objector" status comes into question. I am for religious freedom after all.

I hope he keeps his word, it would be nice to have an end to this issue once and for all.

I don't want federal funding of hospitals. I dare say I stand as firmly or more so on that principle than anyone on this board. (guessing I'm the lone or rare Objectivist*) But we are not talking about some hospital grants to do study "x". We are talking about accepting patients on medicare and medicaid.

Of coarse the government can't literally make a doctor do an abortion. But if the Freedom of Choice act supported by Obama and Boxer gets passed Catholic hospitals might refuse to comply and thus have no choice but to close. And it is one third of hospitals at risk. (according to some liberal at Salon)

This is not an "abortion thread" so much as an example of how fast government control through FOCA and Medicare and Medicaid and a hundred other agencies can screw up the market.

(*student Objectivist that is, lol)

Good point about medicare and medicade...however, as far as I know hospitals aren't required to provide each and every type of medical procedure that is available so I'm not really going to lose any sleep over the issue of Catholic hospitals going out of business. Again, if they do, someone will step in and fill the void.

 

[Tristan]

Yes, but isn't it fun to watch the hypocrites support of the government funding hospitals?

As I said, I'm not in favor of any government funding of hospitals but anyway, it's not Catholic hospitals fault that the government already covers the healthcare of millions and millions of Americans. History shows when the government owns, regulates and controls so much marketshare, we do things their way.

Weather that means less religious freedom, no abortions for anyone or free abortions for all just depends on who wins the latest election.

 

[Tristan]

I Good point about medicare and medicade...however, as far as I know hospitals aren't required to provide each and every type of medical procedure that is available so I'm not really going to lose any sleep over the issue of Catholic hospitals going out of business. Again, if they do, someone will step in and fill the void.

Well the main point was that (and I never knew this) we are talking about one third of all hospitals. Add to that the fact that (according to the article) they would not sell the closed hospitals for the same religious reasons they would not operate them under the new law.

Like I mentioned in the OP I don't think either is likely but both are pretty big political bombs each side can drop on the other. I don't think this issue will ever go away sad as it is.

Add to all that the multitude of promises Obama would have a hard time keeping anyway, even if the economy were not in freefall. Ugly stuff. And believe it or not, I want Obama to do well, for the good of the country.